Mobilty cars .....Joke

Joe_Horner

Mercdriver wrote: »

I'll give in to your point of view if you will do a week with your legs tied together so that you can't move them independently. It's views like yours that deprive disabled people of their dignity.

Get a life and learn how to live it.

Simpler than that, he could try being woken every couple of hours every single night - as many disabled are by pain - then try functioning as normal through the day. I'd give him 2 weeks tops before he couldn't cope any more from sleep depravation.

Mercdriver

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I don't think he's taken anything out, you've got him confused with Gordon Brown.

Think Virgin Trains. "A licence to print money" was what one of his aides said. Guaranteed payout from taxpayers money and track rental was reduced in half a few years ago. He makes his biggest income and puts it away in a tax haven then sells half of the company to Stagecoach when he wants his risks to be shared with others. Sure he's shrewd, but having taken hundreds of millions of government subsidies he could at least do the decent thing and pay tax on his profits. The amount of lost revenue from underserving disability claims pales into significance against the lost revenue from Sir Richard and his ilk.

I'm no communist, and I'm not a Labour voter. But fairness shoudl come into it somewhere.

fred246

I have just been going through the finances of an elderly relative. It appears that she has been in receipt of DLA for over 20 years. None of the family know why.
She had £100ks in the bank and had no need for the money whatsoever.
The only thing that would have cost her extra would be something like a tin opener because she had arthritis in her hands. I can think of nothing extra that she paid for because of her 'disability'.
I could imagine her wanting to park anywhere and being desperate for a 'blue badge'. Might she have claimed DLA to get the badge?

pstuart

[QUOTE=bigbulldog;

Your assuming you know what is going to be available from motability again ignorance as you know nothing.!!!!!!![/QUOTE]


All existing Motability customers who have the opportunity to change now, but are putting off their order until January 2017, please note that a retail cap of £29500 for automatics and £28000 will be in place from Q1 2017.

Call Motability for confirmation and guidance.

I am disabled, in receipt of a Motability vehicle and I do not assume.

takman

Mercdriver wrote: »

Think Virgin Trains. "A licence to print money" was what one of his aides said. Guaranteed payout from taxpayers money and track rental was reduced in half a few years ago. He makes his biggest income and puts it away in a tax haven then sells half of the company to Stagecoach when he wants his risks to be shared with others. Sure he's shrewd, but having taken hundreds of millions of government subsidies he could at least do the decent thing and pay tax on his profits. The amount of lost revenue from underserving disability claims pales into significance against the lost revenue from Sir Richard and his ilk.

I'm no communist, and I'm not a Labour voter. But fairness shoudl come into it somewhere.

If what he is doing is not illegal then how can you expect him to pay more tax than he has to?.

Do you pay more tax than you have to by choice?.

curty510

I can see both sides of the coin here.

If a person is genuinely disabled and needs assistance with mobility needs to live a normal life as possible, why would anyone begrudge them that? The ones that abuse it by faking disabilities or genuine claimants lending their cars & blue badges to non-disabled family & friends seem to make a lot of people irate. These people should have their entitlement removed for life if & when caught.

Why do recipients of the mobility benefit(i know its called allowance, but same thing) get so defensive of it being called 'free car’? The car is paid as an alternative to a benefit? Therefore, not from your own pocket, from the government. If that’s not free i don’t know what it is?

Joe_Horner

takman wrote: »

If what [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE] a Motability claimant is doing is not illegal then how can you expect him to[STRIKE] pay more tax than he has to[/STRIKE] not claim?.

Do you [STRIKE]pay more tax than you have to[/STRIKE]refuse things you're legitimately entitled to by choice?.

Flip it round, ask the same question.

agrinnall

Mercdriver wrote: »

What a condescending ignorant piece of earth you are.

He's certainly a piece of something, earth isn't the word I would use but the appropriate one would be censored.

Joe_Horner

curty510 wrote: »

Why do recipients of the mobility benefit(i know its called allowance, but same thing)

No, it's not the same thing.

Essentially, an allowance is available to everyone regardless of income, like your personal tax allowance.

So, if you're earning a PM's salary and you have a disabled kid you're effectively "allowed" the payment against your own tax contributions. the fact that they take the tax (unless you avoid it of course) and it's then repaid to you doesn't alter that.

If you're earning a more modest income then it's "allowed" against potential lifetime tax.

If you're unable to earn then it's allowed to you just the same - it doesn't suddenly change from an allowance to a benefit depending on your circumstances.

Tothepoint.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, it's not the same thing.

Essentially, an allowance is available to everyone regardless of income, like your personal tax allowance.

So, if you're earning a PM's salary and you have a disabled kid you're effectively "allowed" the payment against your own tax contributions. the fact that they take the tax (unless you avoid it of course) and it's then repaid to you doesn't alter that.

If you're earning a more modest income then it's "allowed" against potential lifetime tax.

If you're unable to earn then it's allowed to you just the same - it doesn't suddenly change from an allowance to a benefit depending on your circumstances.

Dress it up all you like mate but if you don't work it's a free state handout.